The establishment of tribunals as specialized judicial bodies has sparked ongoing debates about their constitutional validity and impact on India's traditional court system.

Agreement with the View: Tribunals Curtailing Court Jurisdiction

• Exclusive Jurisdiction Transfer: Tribunals possess exclusive jurisdiction over specific matters, directly removing cases from regular courts (e.g., Central Administrative Tribunal handling all service matters of central government employees)

• Reduced High Court Powers: Articles 323A and 323B explicitly exclude High Court jurisdiction in matters assigned to tribunals, limiting their traditional supervisory role

• Appeal Restrictions: Many tribunal acts restrict appeals to High Courts, channeling cases directly to Supreme Court, bypassing traditional hierarchical structure

• Specialized Domain Control: Tribunals like National Green Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and Competition Appellate Tribunal have complete control over their respective domains

• Time-bound Disposal: Tribunals' mandate for speedy disposal creates pressure on parties to avoid regular courts despite broader remedial powers

Constitutional Validity of Tribunals

• Constitutional Foundation: Articles 323A (Administrative Tribunals) and 323B (Other Tribunals) provide explicit constitutional backing for tribunal establishment

• Parliamentary Competency: Parliament derives power from Entry 95 of Union List and Article 246 to create specialized adjudicatory bodies

• Judicial Validation: Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) upheld tribunals' constitutional validity while preserving judicial review

• Alternative Justice Mechanism: Tribunals serve as constitutionally recognized alternative to traditional court system for specialized matters

• Separation of Powers: Tribunals maintain independence through judicial members and quasi-judicial procedures, satisfying constitutional requirements

Constitutional Competency and Limitations

Tribunals represent a constitutional evolution balancing efficiency with justice. While they do curtail regular courts' jurisdiction in specific domains, this limitation serves the constitutional goal of accessible, specialized justice delivery within the framework of judicial review and constitutional supremacy.